Talk:Bedford CF

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trucks Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page has an infobox that is missing one or more vital fields and needs to be updated.
Please consult the relevant WikiProject or this category to find the appropriate usage.

what's with all the cubic inch / etc silliness?[edit]

As far as I can tell, this van was only sold in (and the article is written in the language of) places where engines and load weights were rated using metric units during its lifetime - cc's and kgs - as should probably be plain by how the engines are more or less dead-on 50 or 100cc breakpoints (it's the custom to come in just slightly below a particular tax breakpoint to allow for manufacturing variations) and the loading/gross kerb weights are largely at 25/50/100 kg points.

So why are the imperial - or should I say US Standard - ones given equal or greater billing, to the point of creating some rather messy and inconsistent data tables?

I did try to check whether it was actually the case that they were sold using those measures instead, but the links provided turned out dead. In any case, it doesn't warrant this level of multi-unitary and somewhat anachronistic confusion. Include some notes for conversion's sake if you must, but most people by now shouldn't need continual translation of litres into cu-in or kilogrammes into "tons" (is that long tons, short tons, or metric tonnes, btw?) when it comes to the automotive sector, what with even the domestic American market being familiar with e.g. a 5.7 litre Chevy, and yer typical heavy LWB van in the UK being a "3.5 tonne-er" (ie rated for a sniff under 3500kg). 80.189.203.69 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Perkins engines, those UK designed and manufactured engines were sold with model numbers based on capacity in cubic inches (UK standard imperial, not US standard imperial, although the cubic inch is the same for both, but others such as the gallons will be UK (4.5l) not US (3.8l)) throughout the 1980s, with the 4.108 (4 cylinder, 108 cubic inch) remaining in production until 1992. The UK didn't exactly jump onto the metric bandwagon with great universal enthusiasm, and UK imperial measurements remained in common use for decades after metrification began, and still remain in widespread common use today for many things. Here is direct evidence that Bedford were selling the CF in the UK based on imperial load weights and engine capacities in the 1970s: http://www.bedford-cf.co.uk/brochure.htm I have not looked at all of the brochures to determine if/when they switched over to metric, only enough to confirm that this van was originally sold based on imperial measurements in its home market. --Murph9000 (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I have recently seen that this article (along with some other Bedford-related articles) have been vandalized by some Zerolandteam385 guy. I saw some of their edits and while there are many fake and wrong edits in their contributions, the edits put in the CF page seem to have a little sense in them. The last one made by Lutonmover I think, does not really have anything wrong in it. Everything is sourced about the Midi replacing the CF2 (with real sources) and even using common sense, someone can clearly see the logic of these articles (I'm in no way supporting multiple profiles though).

Reverting their edits has also resulted in a frenzy of errors in these Bedford pages. For example, the CF has currently the Bedford NKR (which is a real vehicle, as seen here) as it's successor but the Bedford Midi also has the CF listed as it's predecessor, despite the CF not having it as a successor. The Isuzu Elf page is also badly written and has many unrelated vehicles listed as it's predecessors, however, even when ZLT tried reverting these edits, these were reverted back, likely due to them being on the "blacklist" and every edit done by them, even when it's reverting something or sourcing something, is automatically deleted. This is wrong. I think that their edits should be manually reviewed before being reverted or kept, since many of them (especially the recent ones) have nothing wrong and could very well be kept.

I think these edits should be reverted on their respected pages:

Bedford CF
In the Isuzu Elf page, all predecessor edits should be reverted, since there was no predecessor.
Bedford Midi
Dodge 50 Series
Dodge 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britvan11 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]